Lockdown arguments miss a crucial point

There are various discussions/arguments on social media about the need for and effectiveness of the lockdowns we have had. 
With a few exceptions, they run along expected self-interest lines.

Those who support lockdowns come into one or more of these categories:

1. those who have lost someone close to them from Covid;

2. those in a vulnerable category themselves and are fearful;

3.  those who have a secure income (pension or high job security) such that lockdowns have no effect on their ability to pay mortgages/rent etc;

4. those who unquestioningly accept the government and media narrative and believe they are being selfless or good citizens by supporting lockdowns

Those against lockdowns are:

1. those who know no-one that has died or even hospitalized from Covid;

2.  those who neither themselves nor a family member are in a vulnerable category;

3.  those who have lost their job or business, or fear they will and hence are highly stressed about paying mortgages/rents etc;

4. those who believe the adverse consequences of lockdowns are causing more harm overall than Covid itself;

As I said, the first three points are largely understandable natural reactions.

Point 4 is the topic of real interest to me, however, I think a crucial point is being missed:

WE HAVE HAD NO LOCKDOWNS!!

The Chinese had a lockdown of Wuhan Province. In that, the army were on the streets distributing basic food & water supplies but more importantly ensuring that, with a few exceptions, no-one set foot outside their doors!

In the UK, TENS OF MILLIONS of people have continued, at least to some extent, to mingle with others.

Our society could not function without the NHS, Ambulance & Police, for example.
Also, food producers, distributors and retailers.
Also, workers that keep our electricity, gas and water supplies maintained.  
Also, teachers for in-class teaching of these key worker’s children. 
And I’m sure I’ve missed some.

In addition, we were ALL allowed to go to the food shops whenever we liked (no checks were made) in which there was, in reality, almost zero social distancing.

So, along with the evidence on the usefulness of masks being mixed at best, the reality in the UK is that we’ve never had a real lockdown or frankly, anything even close.

There has been massive and continuous mingling which in turn means we've created a lot of economic, non-covid medical, social and educational stress & damage that could not possibly achieve anything more than a partial slowing-down of Covid spread, at best.

There’s been a lot of wishful thinking behind most of the restrictions we’ve been subjected to, including our partial-lockdowns, with very little evidence of their effectiveness,  but the government had to be seen to be doing something.

As with all respiratory viruses, most of the increases and decreases in Covid deaths can be explained by the simple changing of the seasons.
In winter, respiratory viruses affect far more people than in the summer; thus a second wave was inevitable.

Due to the reality of continuous mingling, there is no direct evidence that the pretend-lockdowns have made more than a marginal difference.
  
For example, in this study, https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2020-opinion-coronavirus-europe-lockdown-excess-deaths-recession/ it found no correlation between the strictness of lockdown measures and the spread of the virus. It also notes that the countries with the most severe restrictions are suffering the most economically which will play out over the next few years – no surprise there.

So why then has the Government and its medical/scientific advisers taken the steps they have and continued with them, rather than any alternative policies?

Well, I don’t think we need to look too much further than initial panic followed by a pragmatic retreat into political & reputational expediency.
 
They simply weren’t prepared to do what Sweden did, (i.e. almost nothing).
  
If taking that route had resulted in far higher numbers of deaths per thousand than other European countries who had taken more drastic action, that would have been the end of Johnson’s government for sure. 

'Murderous complacency' would have been the cry.

Much safer politically to adopt similar policies to almost everyone else in Europe, whatever the final outcome.
In essence, safety in numbers or political camouflage.

The BEST DECISION the Government made was to go it alone on acquiring vaccinations rather than go in with the EU scheme. This is why we are so far ahead on vaccinations.
Even Germany gave up and went it alone recently as the EU centralised system was quite literally not delivering the goods.

What we don't know is how long they stay effective for, if you can still catch Covid after vaccination and/or if you can still pass it on to others.
The current mass vaccination programme IS the long-term clinical trial that there wasn't time to do.

The WORST DECISION the Government made is more difficult but 
I think there are two tied for first place, and they were both made in the summer months.
  
The first was to rely solely on rushed vaccines being available in time for winter and not using the summer to create and train a Volunteer Medical Service that could staff the Nightingale hospitals from November/December onwards thus taking pressure off the main NHS which always struggles in winter, even without Covid;

[Putting as many Covid patients into the Nightingale Hospitals as possible from November would also have reduced the in-hospital catching of Covid by non-Covid patients which the NHS estimates at between 15-20% of Covid cases].

The second error was not to make any attempt to make special provision for the winter such that the most vulnerable, say aged 80+ and those with certain existing conditions, could be shielded along with their carers within defined bubbles, allowing everyone else (and therefore the economy) to carry on largely as normal.

These lacks of foresight made a winter lockdown, whether effective or otherwise, a political necessity as hospitals filled-up.

What we can't yet know is whether the negative impacts from these various partial lockdowns will be seen by history as having done more damage overall than the Covid virus itself. 

However, that the Government have done no such cost/benefit analysis, or if they have, not published it, is very poor indeed and probably tells its own story.

We do have one such analysis from Bristol University suggesting that the adverse effects of lockdowns will mean the equivalent of 560,000 extra deaths. And that was based solely on the economic repercussions, not the non-Covid medical, societal and educational repercussions as well.

Still, it's the done thing to just accept what we're being told by the Government backed-up by generally supportive opposition Parties and a totally compliant media.

The only question the Government is being asked by these institutions that should be holding it to account is, 'why aren't you locking down harder and arresting or fining anyone not complying?' 

Even the most obvious and reasonable questions about the effectiveness of certain policies and the amount of longer term damage as a result of them, are simply not allowed it seems.

So much for our democracy! SIGH!!